Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n v. Dixon
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
1Opinion of the CourtHickerson, J.
Only one question is presented by this appeal, and that is a question of law: The proper construction of the insurance policy which is the basis of this suit.
There is no controversy about the facts. Appellant, who was defendant below, issued a policy of insurance to Ottis G-. Dixon, appellee, who was complainant below. The purpose of the insurance policy was expressed in these words which appear on the back of the policy and at the beginning of the policy on its face: “This policy provides benefits for loss of life, limb, sight or time, by accidental means, or loss of time by sickness as…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Laurenzi v. Atlas Ins.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1915
- Stoops v. First American Fire InsuranceTennessee Supreme Court · 1930
- Inman v. Lips & Casualty Ins.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1932
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. AnsleyCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1938
- Great Eastern Casualty Co. v. SolinskyTennessee Supreme Court · 1923
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Continental Casualty Company v. BorthwickDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1965
- Quintana v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1989